Chomsky: Why healthcare is now an issue w/candidates

[JayGatsbyOdysseus]

My brother is a heart sugeon. There is not "Third World" health care here in the USA. Chomsky is always committing on stuff he knows nothing about. He is a linguist, but you never hear him talking about words, language. Why doesn't he move back to the kibbutz in Israel where he use to live. They wouldn't have him in Israel.

[kclz2420]

@JayGatsbyOdysseus If you actually RECEIVE health care in the US, then it's first world health care. If you don't, GOOD LUCK!!!

[ilshockll]

i will weep the day noam chomsky passes away...

[wallace2ification]

I wonder what Foucault would have to say about all of this...

[gonadcancervictim]

it should be illegal for employers to have anything to do with healthcare

[riptide1111]

@gonadcancervictim

your comment makes no sense.....if healthcare had no employers, there would not be any staff or hospitals.

[gonadcancervictim]

@riptide1111 no i mean like my boss should just pay me to lay concrete not pay 1 people for every 3 people who do actual work to fill out paperwork

so 9 people and boss does books rather than 12 people and boss still does books

[IslamIstheWayforMe]

@gonadcancervictim

.

Lol are you really that stupid? Dumbest comment of the day right here

[rbouverat]

The problem with Universal healthcare in a capitalist country is its always going to be terrible asswell as education thats why we need to go for full swing revolutionarry Socialism VIVE LE REVOLUTION!

[GreggTheEgg]

This ranks right up there among my favorite Chomsky vidz.

[DelphinusMAch1]

Communism: Subjugation to the state.

Capitalism: Subjugation to the corporations.

Authoritarianism: Subjugation to the Supreme Leader.

Socialism: Subjugation to other men.

Liberalism: Subjugation to 'humanity'.

Theocracy: Subjugation to religion.

Democracy: Subjugation to the masses.

ANARCHISM: FREEDOM.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 How are you subjectgated in capitalism? There are many industries in capatilism where you don't even have to work under anyone.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Because the owners of the largest corporations in an unregulated or lassez-faire capitalist market are free to set the terms for the other participants for their own profit. The most obvious examples of this are monopolies and price-fixing cartels.

I actually have no problem with a free market as Adam Smith and market anarchists envision it, but if all participants don't abide by 'fair game' policies then it easily collapses into an oligarchy. Like modern capitalism.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Could you give me some examples of monopolies occuring without government help? I can't seem to find any.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 There are numerous examples: the most recent and relevant being the numerous anti-competition measures Microsoft has taken - and later been reprimanded on by courts. For an example of the negative effects of allowing companies free license, one need look no further than the recent economic crisis. Centralised banks are often criticised on these grounds for promoting reckless investment by banks at the cost of the public.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Microsoft is a monopoly? What about apple? Alot of people actually prefer apple. And what have centralised banks got to do with this?

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 It's an effective monopoly nonetheless. Most people are trained to use Windows, Windows is the standard operating system for offices, etc. etc. While for some purposes Apple is a viable alternative, in business and for standard processing of documents knowing how to use Microsoft products is a must. In the field of 'non-specialist computing', Microsoft is the only system that's generally used.

Linux is more for techies, Apple more for creatives.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Centralised banks, especially privately-owned ones (like the American Federal Reserve) have exclusive control over currency. Because of their activities as 'lender of last resort' and as lenders to the state, they effectively control the monetary supply of the country; a monopoly in the truest sense. Moreover, through excessive debt being owed to them by the public, they tax the public to ensure banks never fail. "Too big to fail" banks are essentially bailed out by the taxpayer.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Central banks are created and protetcted by government and are therefore not a example of a monopoly forming without government help an in my opinion banks should not be bailed out by the taxpayer.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Granted, but monopolies that form with and without government help are of equal danger to anyone that isn't privy to the wealth they generate. It doesn't matter how a monopoly forms: the only thing that matter is that consumers are protected from them, whether that's by unions or by the state.

I think one of the main problems is how businesses are structured: as essentially feudalist systems, they have no incentive to look at economic side-effects beyond what benefits them.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Well seeing as monopolies don't seem to form without a state all you need to do is limit the ability of the state to create such monopolies and then we don't need the state to protect us from them.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Evidence, please. The burden of proof is on you to prove that ALL monopolies have been created by state involvement, given it's a far more specific claim than "some monopolies have been facilitated by the state".

I know what you're arguing for and implying, which is free-market capitalism, but I don't believe that the invisible hand of the market is perfectly fair. Dismantling the state monopoly on force doesn't require letting the free market rock out.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 I said they don't seem to form without a state.If I am to prove that i would need to list all monopolies and then the state involement in thier creation. Something that I'm not up to doing right now because it's quite a large task. However I have been looking quite a while for a monopoly forming without state involvement in a market and i have yet to find one.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Possibly because no states are irresponsible enough to leave the market to do anything it likes?

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Prehaps today all states interfere in the market but historically america did not and i haven't heard of any monopolies from that time either. I can't see how one would form either since if a company is the only one to make a certain product and tries to use this to raise prices there is a high incentive for someone else to make a cheaper rival company.

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 But this assumes the market is regulated enough that the monopolising company can't simply kill or main all competitors - which is a function of government. The governments of the past may not have interfered economically, but they certainly tried to prevent companies from using violent power against competitors.

[666or999]

@DelphinusMAch1 Sure. How is that relevent?

[DelphinusMAch1]

@666or999 Because you can view any such intervention on 'moral' grounds as intervention in the economy.

[hubbell627]

Then leave, asshole!

[ALTERED13TH]

Health care has never been much of an issue in America. Our system is the best in the world except for the public sector portions which are horrible such as Medicare and Medicaid. Now it is an issue because Obama has tried a government take over to socialize it and further take it away from the private sector. Chomsky should stick to linguistics because he's a moron when he talks about economics.

[rickbar123]

@ALTERED13TH Your mother is a crack ho. A 2 dollar crack smoking ho. She takes it in the ass for a hit of crack. You stupid smacked ass dick head.

[ALTERED13TH]

@rickbar123 spoken like a true mentally disturbed liberal lunatic loser who likes Obama and that wackjob Noam Chimpsky who is one of the most ignorant, mentally disturbed chumps around. Keep taking your meds and you will be fine.

[rickbar123]

@ALTERED13TH I don't like Obama. I am a RN of 15 years (all at the bedside) and think that this system we have now is a total failure. My city has lost 9 hospitals in the last 20 years and if not for the public sector would lose whats left. The private sector is out to fuck you. You are just too deep up Beck's ass to see it. You are the moron.

[666or999]

@rickbar123 Lol american healthcare was hardly laissez faire.

[HoGraz]

@ALTERED13TH Anti-intellectual.

[jiggity99]

@ALTERED13TH Sorry. I think I'll concede to the world-renowned intellectual on this one. Ask Edward Herman what he thinks about Noam Chomsky. He knows a thing or two about economics.

[ALTERED13TH]

@jiggity99 Right, Edward Herman from radical Berkley who published a book with Noam Chimpsky. Chimpsky is a wrong about health care and economics. There are no economically poor people in American only intellectually, educationally and ethically poor who milk the free health care, free food, and other free shit system that the closet racist, patronizing liberal, collectivists like FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter developed called the liberal welfare plantation that has enslaved generations of blacks.

[jscottupton]

He made his reputation in linguistics and then, extremely impressed with his own achievements in this field, felt free to venture into other areas which he pompously inundates with streams of uninformed opinions.

[chonus4497]

@jscottupton

Apparently your opinion doesn't disprove anything he says. Either dissect his argument or take your ad hominem attacks over to the Glenn Beck videos.

[dzhibrish]

I think this problem is prevalent in every democracy in the west but in the US especially cause of the duopoly over political opinion.

There are only 2 political parties.

I think when you have a multitude of political parties and forces it is harder to keep everyone at the same line and saying the same things.

[dzhibrish]

@dzhibrish

What Chomsky is complaining about is a symptom, a result of something deeper, IMO.

The cause is the structure of corporations and the attitude towards them.

We need to reconsider the current corporate entity and ask if it should be viable or perhaps it should be prohibited and changed or redefined.

in some ways a duopoly or just a very small number of political parties is a positive thing, especially in countries with a lot of immigration and hence a huge spectrum of opinions.

[dzhibrish]

@dzhibrish

And at that point you might get a lot of instability as a result of many parties each pushing towards its own very different goals.

on the other hand a small amount of parties is easy to pressure or influence so they all stay in line defined by people with a lot of power and money.

[DontEatEggs666]

How does healthcare affect GM? I don't understand this video.

[Maxander2001]

@Photosareawesome Hey.. good points can't be made enough times in this world it seems h0h0 *hugs* from Sweden! :)

[Maxander2001]

@Photosareawesome Hence me saying "China is a CAPITALIST NATION" right? :)

[MaiaRikae]

Excellent point, probably true, and damn depressing.

[jdirt2019]

we need george bush to come back

[alltoohuman17]

O_o

[parsbirdies19]

kotash2 you're an anarchist. big business ceo's from today and from the past got rich using corrupt and illegal methods. you're missing the point. it's not the wages henry ford paid his employees. it's the exclusive contracts and under the counter deals, not to mention all of the trusts he developed, that led him to monopolizing the industrial economy, just like large insurance company ceos are doing today. now you learn some history.

[xGamer911x]

We're fucked.

[juanpolar]

i love this man

always with the same swetter speaking like his is 30 years old

with the same passion

[KenCat1337]

I need to see Chomsky before he dies..

[Srhandel]

They don't have national healthcare in China a Communist country, they also have slave wages. How are we supposed to compete with that?

[PDRO4LYFE]

CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST!

[Maxander2001]

@PDRO4LYFE no.. China is a capitalist nation with no respect for human life.

[amet1980]

of course they have you morron

[icecreamtrepan]

Yeah, what a jerk. Guy who thinks all people are equal and healthcare and having a roof over your head should be a human right instead of a privilege. What a bastard. Only a certain group of people should get healthcare, those people who are the means of production should just get enough money to eat and then work. After all, the government and capitalism has shown those people are expendable.

[IamAlexM16]

I sense a little sarcasm. Obviously communism doesn't work because every time its been tried it's failed. Societies that have embraced capitalism now have a much higher standard of living. I do recognize however, that a small percentage of people would be unable to be productive because of some sort of disability or just bad luck. The thing is there are lots of people that would take in the few that would otherwise been left out. Before the welfare state, people did this all the time.

[ShutterOfMouths]

every country that has adopted an alternative to capitalism has dealt with U.S. intervention or destabilization. Cuba w/o the Monroe Doctrine could have thrived. Health care shouldn't be for profit, it should be accessible by everyone. Democracy does not always equal freedom, nor does communism always equal totalitarianism.

[agenttachyon]

Communism has never been tried. What you think of as being communist countries were actually just totalitarian dictatorships, and not really communist at all. Capitalism only looks good on the side that benefits while another starves.

[xkeltoix]

communism has been tried, theres plenty of small communist societies all over the world but they are not countries.

The same can be said about true capitalism.

[Durgat]

Communism has never been attempted.

[Mrpossum2]

The nature of Communism does not allow for a system of pricing or an incentive to be more productive or go out and start a new business to feel the void if a service is not being adequately met. This part of Communism has been tried and is the reason that these "totalitarian dictatorships" have always been disasterous.

[Durgat]

Meh, the easiest answer is No money and Machine government.

[aiyic]

Like the Venus Project?!

[Durgat]

No, the venus project asks too much. This is far simpler.

[amet1980]

you cant start from :

usa is not a capitalist society, not by the definition of the term.

usa is a mixed economy, with great deal of "socialist" consepts incorporated in the market dynamics economy.

in fact the greater prosperity of western societies is attributed to the great distributional systems of 30s, 40s 60s and 70s.

[kotash2]

The greater prosperity of western societies is due to the fact that governments were small , taxes were low and unions couldnt destroy production. The US richer and more prosperous and has higher living standards precisely b/c the "distributional" systems you speak of are far WEAKER in the US than in other nations. There is more emphasis on private property & productivity...thats what leads to real wealth for everyone.

[amet1980]

you dont have a clue .read some economic statistics and economic history not televangelists economists..

the greater the distribution of wealth is the greater the wealth of nation is.USA is not by far the wealthiest western economy.

[kotash2]

What I said before is a simple fact. Capitalism:the greater accumulation of capital in western economies is directly responsible for the higher standard of living,higher wages,better hours &conditions. The US in particular was ahead of other nations in the early 1900s b/c so called "progressivism" came later the US. Since the new deal our economy has slowly been destroyed by unions, taxes & regulations.  Now our gov is completely bankrupt: b/c of Keynesian interventionalist "activist" policies

[douginamerica]

That is hardly true. The greater accumulation of capital in the western economies was because of the greater exploitation of non-western nations. The US was a non-factor prior to World War I. The English empire was the great power due to exploitation. Had Europe not disintegrated due to constant war, it is debatable if the US would be in its current position.

[kotash2]

Once again you & others here are completely confusion poltical and economic power. Pol. pwr is coercive %& imperial & exploitive. Economic power is not. If you create a product that people want & need & voluntarity trade for & the gov does not get involved then good for U. The fallacy is to assume that the gov is a tool for capitalists to exploit workers. ( this is complete socialist nonsense) Govs. everywhere persecute , tax, regulate business & drive them away.

[douginamerica]

That is not true by any measure if the politics of a nation is racial superiority: Europe up to the 20th century. Then if we add that economic motives are the primary directors of politics, then we have a fused monster. Usually you can not separate politics and economics. Thus exploitation is par for the course for any nation that becomes a world power. You can exploit other nations for labor, natural resources and what have you if you have the power: weapons and wars.

[kotash2]

Chomsky goes on and on about needing to have a functional democracy. Well if we did we would have what the founding fathers envisoned a constitutional republic of limited powers: lasssez faire. Sure there was racism people will always be biased to a degree. but if you have a system where people compete&trade w/1 another based on merit, value, acheivement then these forces will help defeat racism. This ideal system is lassiz faire capitalism: its what you can do, not your color.

[douginamerica]

Again, laissez faire is a dream. A fantasy and such does not work. It did not work in the late 1800s, 1920s and is the cause of our current crisis. Big business must be regulated. A market needs a warden to prevent the buyer from attacking the seller; and the seller needs to be punished for fraud against the buyer. You are talking fantasy when you mention merit. It is like a communist who mentions a workers paradise. A mixed socialist-capitalistic model such as the US now is the best.

[kotash2]

The reason the US is /has been the predonminat econ. pwr in the world w/ a small fraction of the land and only like 4% of the pop. is plain and simple b/c of laissez faire capitalism. Our productivity, and efficiency was simpy greater. The extent that unions, regulations and taxes were low or non-existent, the US flourished. Now you are witnessing the end of the US predom in the world. And its b/c of collectivst, statist socialist thinking like Urs.

[amet1980]

of course not.:

A usa had a head start.60 years for some.100 for more analysts(due to the consequences of wars of late 1800 and wws)

b prosperity coexist with thegreat taxation and redistributing systems in usa history because of the not inspite of them(even today revoke the taxation system =70 % of the american population would starve to death)(you do realizethat for a family of four making 40 000 dollars income the goverment adds to their incomes additional 40 000 dollars,dont you?)

[kotash2]

In good times a nation might be able to afford massive taxation and redistribution schemes. They are still immoral & violate natural law. But the redistribution of wealth in the US has been one of the main factors in bankruptiong the fed gov. Its sad to see people not understanding the wealth destroying effects of social security ( a ponzi scheme) & the waste & efficiency of medicare.

[douginamerica]

Redistribution of wealth is quite moral and in the interest of every one. What is more moral than helping those in need?

The concentration of wealth into a small group of the population is the road to ruin. That is why a strong estate tax is needed. Inheriting large wealth does not help a nation.

[douginamerica]

That is pseudo capitalistic propaganda. The reason the US became a world power was due to decimation of the native Indian population, exploitation of workers and then opportunity presented to the US after Europe was devastated by war. Laissex Faire capitalism is as much a fantasy as communism. It is NEVER in the interest of any corporation to compete. That would be like asking a man would he want another man present on an island full of only super models.

[kotash2]

The US GOV exploited &decimated the indians. Business people didnt. Businesspeople traded with the indians. Its very disappointed to see people spouting socialist fallacies and not understanding how an economy grows and why the US became prosperous. This lack of understanding is why we have a bankrupt fed gov & a complete meltdown of the economy. GOv has distorted&manipulated the free market for so long the distortions finally came crashing down on us.

[douginamerica]

What is foolish is to think that business is not the primary cause of the decimation of Indians. The land grab was not in the interest of the settlers, businesses, and land grabbers who wanted Indian lands? The true fallacy is the capitalist's dream: a fantasy of competition.

[gg4465a]

@kotash2 That is so laughably absurd. How does it feel to be a mouthpiece for corporate America? What will the poor Wall St. execs do without their MILLIONS of dollars? They might have to get rid of a yacht!

"If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, its struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires." - Matt Taibbi

I would also direct you to several studies showing that increased compensation leads to lower productivity.

[kotash2]

You, like most left liberals, are demonstrating an almost complete lack of understanding of basic economics. Executive pay has risen b/c large corporations have used the government for special favors & subsidies that exclude competition&consolidate their market share. In a real free market the gov stays out. As productivity rises, prosperity rises for everyone. Henry Ford got rich but he paid his employees some of the highest wages. Learn some history.

[gg4465a]

I'm sure you thought you had a Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting moment there, telling me something I didn't know, but you're missing the point entirely. You can't have unfettered, unrestricted capitalism, because surprise! When you tell companies that there are no rules, they tend to act irresponsibly. The world is not full of Henry Fords, it's full of Bernie Madoffs. Read "The Jungle" and tell me that de-regulation is the best thing for everyone, not just the economic elite.

[kotash2]

You are so completely wrong about this. Companies in a free market have no power to coercive or exploit. They have to act responsibly to gain and keep customers. If they act in bad faith, thats a crime of fraud and SHOULD be punished. The gov creates the conditions whereby the corps can act with impunity and get bailouts. The free market gives us everything we have. Gov confiscates it & uses it to serve power ...even Chomsky knows this. The solution is less gov.

[gg4465a]

In addition, your assertion that the financial crisis is a problem of regulation rather than one of deregulation is not supported anywhere, by any evidence whatsoever. The factors that led to the crisis were rooted in the end of Glass-Steagall, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment practices that created a massive housing bubble and led to a lot of people engaging in the sale of debt as a commodity. G-S was a good regulatory measure, and now that it's gone, we're in ruin.

[kotash2]

If you wont even have an open mind to the fact that the gov is almost entirely responsible for the curent financial crises then I cant help you.  I will be sitting on my pile of gold b.c I understand the facts and the fundamentals while the left liberals will slowly be bankrupted by the money printing & overspending of the liberal socialist machine gov that they love so much. All the while blaming some right wing conspiracy for problems that they created.

[gg4465a]

Your problem is that you think the world is a simple place, with very simple rules. Free market = prosperity + productivity, government = bad. The reality is that deregulation often leads to companies abusing the lack of rules and getting away with whatever they can, because they can make more money that way. It's common sense, and clearly you have none.

Bet it felt good to drop that "learn some history" line, thinking you were talking to the average YT moron.

[kotash2]

The world is not simple. Simple is to think that gov. acts in our best interests. Simple minded to the extreme to think that a gov bureacrat is somehow not greedy& power hungry & corrupt. A company has no power to exploit you. YOu voluntarily buy the product or service or not. Gov. can coerce with laws& force. Gov. through history has been the great enemy of human rights the world over. The US revolution was an attempt to through off the shackles of gov & let free people produce & create.

[gg4465a]

No, a company DOES have power to exploit me, and not just me, a lot more people as well. Companies have found very subtle ways to undermine competition without breaking any laws and as a result have developed cushy relationships with government officials that allow them to behave irresponsibly and get away with it. Take the media -- once corporate influence started encroaching on traditional news outlets, bias was immediately introduced into the process, and as a result, our news is skewed now.

[gg4465a]

I'm sure there are government bureaucrats who are power-hungry, but the problem is, if you're a power hungry person to begin with, you don't GO into government. There's no money in it. You go into the private sector where you can make a boatload of money. Go ahead and try to tell me that Wall St. execs aren't doing better than any government official on public payroll.

[slingshot2427]

Disagree. While money is generally equated to power, I think that POWER hungry people generally are more drawn to government than business. There is no incentive to go into government unless you desire power by definition. Government officials are generally old money anyways, they're doing just fine without being active on Wall Street as well. While I think you have a point that it probably also happens the other way around, I generally disagree.

[gg4465a]

I'd be willing to concede that. It doesn't change the fact that this crisis didn't result from too little regulation, not too much. When you look at the hard facts of the situation, there's no evidence for the claim that government was TOO involved in the economy. If that were even remotely the case, we wouldn't have had branches of these investment banks operating independently for so long and keeping their debt off the books. It's idiotic to think that fiscal irresponsibility wasn't a factor.

[gg4465a]

And thanks for the history lesson, Plutarch, I'm pretty sure I understand what the American Revolution was about. The problem is that we've largely abandoned the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers, which were not only intended to protect the people from the government BUT ALSO charged the government with protecting the people from themselves.

[gg4465a]

In addition, your comment that I can voluntarily buy a product/service or not is irrelevant. You can't in all seriousness think that companies don't take an active interest in altering the marketplace in their favor. If you were well-read in any part of American history, you would know that government regulations have often prevented companies from treating workers horribly, engaging in anti-competitive practices, using child labor, using slave labor, and banning organized labor, to name a few.

[DonVoghano]

The free market is unsustainable: crooks always tinker with it. Calling for its deregulation just plays in the hands of the oligarchs who then have free space to manipulate it more and more.

That's why THEY are funding the tea parties and why THEY have been instilling hatred for the government for decades. By thinking that you are for free markets you just give power to the crooks that destroy it and your country along with it.

[kotash2]

I actually went to one of the tea parties. The "crooks" you hate so much are not an actual group of people. The corruption that you hate is a direct result of the increase in the size & power of the government itself & liberal welfare/warfare state policies. The war in Iraq ( which I think is a crime& prob so do you) is a big gov. project just like social security. Both are bankrupt, both favor big corporate gov interest. What I am talking about is REAL freedom, liberty NO GOVERNMENT!

[god0fmusic]

capitalist bastard

[kotash2]

Why would say that? IF it werent for capitalism& capitalists U wouldnt even have a cheap computer to yell at me. Is Steve Jobs a capitalist bastard? Bill Gates. Hewlett, Packard. These were brilliant men who invented, innovated took risks&have enormously enriched your life &mine & deserve every penny they have earned.

[rgman268]

If it wasn't for the State, then you wouldn't be able to write your dumb message since there wouldn't be any internet.

[kotash2]

The interest was started by DARPA, the defense dept. It was paid for by TAXES which were confiscated from U & me. All the engineers, physicists computer scientists got their educations at MIT, Caltech ---bascially private individuals. The world wide web today as we know it is almost entirely a private undertaking, in fact its one of the last bastions of truly free laissez faire. IF the gov got involved it would like stifle our conversation b/c power hates chomsky b/c he's so ciritical of it

[rgman268]

Actually, it was Chomsky that made the point the State was involved in the development of the Internet and that the private industries have taken it and profited.

He has said it several times.

[kotash2]

Chomsky is so selective & biased with the information that he discusses. My own father was an engineer that worked with NASA & DARPA. DARPA wanted a communication system that would survive a nuclear attack. The soln was a decnetralized underground wired network of computers: the first internet. It was text based very slow...very small. Meant for coded messages, military use.  It was "developed" by PRIVATE enterprise and expertise that the gov hired and paid with our taxes.

[rgman268]

But, without the State it wouldn't have happened. They needed to steal our money to pay the private sector. So you are not contradicting anything I have said.

I didn't say that the State developed it.

[kotash2]

The world wide web as it exists today, the internet since the late 1980s is a creature of private enterprise. All the advances in technology & organisation driven by good'ole profit driven capitalism as it should be. To say that w/ the state it would not have happened is another fallacy- counterfactual hypothetical. What you should imagine is if the web was still controlled by the state , how restricted & of gen poor quality it would be like everything the gov does.

[rgman268]

I am not talking about the Web today or in the 80's. I am talking about the very beginings of the Web began with the State.

Without the State, what reason would there have been for Private Enterprise to develop such a system?

[kotash2]

So you're saying that without the looming threat of nuclear war between the US+the soviet union, there would have been no impetus, no reason, no inspiration, no motivation to create a worldwide network of computer communications? What built the telephone system, the railways, the telegraph system, telecom satellites? How about trade, commerce, human enrichment. You're talking like a true socialist: no faith in private individuals to do anything worthwhile w/o the state kicking them.

[rgman268]

Actually, I am questioning. Hence the question mark.

[notque]

The population has a completely different view than corporations on the needs for universal healthcare. That information is never broadcast, and very for important reasons. If the population doesn't know that other people feel the way they do about healthcare, then they will feel isolated and alone, while listening to corporations continue to tell them that Universal Healthcare is nonsense. You have to consider the issue, and research it. Research it.

[JCarlosC]

I reacently saw the documental zeitgeist, that is incredible to think all about this things.

[Lambda121]

Watch the video of noam chomsky taking a part 9/11 and I think Zeitgeist was sort of right in part three but I doubt that thier is a conspiracy among banks to cause the great depression.

[bootleg42]

Yeah. Zeitgeist is really more about nutty conspiracy theories and it's also a trick to try to get people to the far-right, particularly the free-market libertarian right.

That's why there is so much anti-government stuff in that film. Chomsky spoke about such feelings of "anti-politics" before and he basically tore it down.

[icecreamtrepan]

Yeah, a lot of conspiracy theory shit is ultra-right bullshit. Like Alex Jones, it's stupid backwoods redneck retards who think the government is putting chips into your head and think the banks and the Illuminati are going to enslave us all. They fail to realize there's no need for secret society shit, it's fucking right out in front of you, there's the state, capitalism, the WTO, IMF, World Bank, religion, etc.

Fuck ultra-right conspiracy idiots.

[bootleg42]

They're just trying to get people to automatically hate the government so they they can sneak in their "free-market" alternatives when total government hatred is at a high.

Chomsky stated that the government, even though evil, is potentially democratic, which is why all portions of the right try to create such anti-government feelings. The far-right (Ron Paul for example) take this hatred to a new level, hence the whole "angry white men" hysteria.

[rios9000]

You know there were quite a few on the left who supported (or at least appreciated) Ron Paul and other libertarians. Libertarians aren't at all fond of corporations because they get in bed with government to screw everybody else all the time. The difference between the "far right" i.e. Paul (although many of Paul's policies are quite liberal, like drug legalization) and the "far left" i.e. Chomsky is the proposed solution. They both recognize the same problem unlike the two major parties.

[zrodeathwing]

Not exactly. Chomsky recognizes the problem of people working for wages, which he and many other figures (as he has pointed out many times) consider another form of slavery. Paul on the other hand does not see this as an issue at all.

They don't recognize the same problems. Chomsky knows the whole "social security" crisis is bull shit, Paul does not. Chomsky sees wage slavery as a problem, Paul does not.

[rios9000]

The social security crisis is overblown (although not bs) however medicare is way in the red. We have 53 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Even the head of the GAO has come out and said we can't grow our way out of it. We do have a major financial problem (although social security is not the root cause). Paul's solution however is to use the money we waste overseas to bring the trust funds back into the black. If we don't do that, we will have to raise taxes/cut benifits or inflate the currency.

[pdxeddie1111]

I know!!!! Get the fed to print enough paper about 99 trillion dollars then pay off everyone with this worthless paper and then when the fed wants their interest just laugh you suckers. We'll then go back to a silver standard and deem the fed as obsolete. All I know for sure is that we better get out of this mess or we're gonna be in BIG BIG BIG financial trouble.

[kotash2]

The Federal reserve is the problem. They are the ones empowered to print money and create credit. When you see prices for food and energy going up DONT BLAME capitalism and businesses. Blame your own government for creating inflation. Government power is the problem not capitalism. Chomsky thinks that somehow gov efforts can be harnessed to do what HE thinks is right but he's a fool b/c the gov power will always be abused. The solution is LAISSEZ faire capitalism

[dloverise]

Ron Paul - far right....he's a libertarian - anti-war in iraq! He and chomsky have a great deal in common regards international affairs.

[Advocate1234]

Yeah...but polar opposite on economic issues.

[PlasticJesus341]

haha Ron Paul? He would want to privatize the health care system which is exactly what Chomsky is criticizing in this video.

[kotash2]

The only way the health care system is going to actually be more affordable is for it to be completely privatised. To the extent that health care systems around the world are affordable and efficient reflects the degree to which they are allowed to work as free markets with minimal gov control and interference

[BillyBawb]

Almost everything Alex Jones says is backed up with declassified or leaked documents. And anyone who doesn't think that the big banks play a major role in our "polyarchy" is a fool or does not understand the system to begin with.

[cydwaze8]

Bootleg, I was just listening to a bit he did about the anti-government meme, and how it ultimately serves those can afford lobbists (namely corporations). The idea is spread, so that we hate the very thing we can change to our advantage, meanwhile corporations rally to get legislation passed.

[onlywhenprovoked]

i have said it a million times: noam is the man

and of course he's right

when corporate money talks, the corrupt politicians listen